Fertilizer Co. v. Trona Corp.

3 Citing cases

  1. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Bates

    76 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1935)   Cited 27 times

    The manipulation of the books merely tended to characterize Sloan's conduct. Proof that a dishonest or illegal custom of withholding entries from the books existed, would not, in our judgment, have been of any help to Sloan or to the defendant. Hubbard Fertilizer Co. of Baltimore City v. American Trona Corporation, 142 Md. 246, 120 A. 522; Vial et al. v. Paradis, County Treasurer, etc., et al., 44 Idaho 157, 255 P. 643, 53 A.L.R. 191. The Iowa Code 1931, § 9282, makes false entries in the books of a bank a criminal offense. The defendant complains of the exclusion of the testimony of cashiers of other banks in the check-kiting ring, to the effect that they knew nothing of the check-kiting prior to the "blow-up."

  2. Twombley v. Fuller Brush Co.

    221 Md. 476 (Md. 1960)   Cited 39 times
    Adopting § 388

    " The defendant argues that the spot remover was sold, under a trade name and, therefore, Sec. 33 (4) absolves it of any liability for injuries suffered by the user of the article, citing May Oil Burner Corp. v. Munger, 159 Md. 605, 152 A. 352, and Hubbard Fertilizer Co. v. American Trona Corp., 142 Md. 246, 120 A. 522. The plaintiff claims that his wife impliedly informed the Fuller Brush salesman of the purpose for which she bought the product by the mere fact that she bought the spot remover, and that she relied upon the skill and judgment of the salesman who sold her the product and that, therefore, an implied warranty as to the fitness of the product did arise. We are of the opinion that the testimony of Mrs. Twombley relating to the purchase of the spot remover, none of which was disputed by the defendant, permits the inference that Mrs. Twombley relied solely upon the skill and judgment of the salesman when she bought the spot remover.

  3. Parker v. Morgan

    170 Md. 7 (Md. 1936)   Cited 21 times

    Code, art 83, sec. 36, subsec. (1); and compare subsection (4); Luria Bros. Co. v. Klaff, 139 Md. 586, 593, 115 A. 849; Hubbard Fertilizer Co. v. American Trona Corp., 142 Md. 246, 249, 120 A. 522. Since the owners have kept the goods, they may, by way of subrogation in these proceedings in equity, set up against the claimant any breach of this implied warranty in diminution or extinction of the price.